Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Work experience - more ideas here
Following my latest post, I came across this succinct little checklist for anyone wanting successful work experience on a newsdesk. I'm sure the ideas apply across publishing.
Monday, 3 August 2009
Work experience is what you make of it
Just read yet another article on the supposed 'slavery' of work experience.
Since the late Nineties - when I started pursuing work experience opportunities - I have taken any opportunity to extoll the virtues of giving up your time and making the effort to work for free.
The difference is, I understand that the value of work experience is in how you, as the 'workie' make the most of it.
There are still people out there deriding their work experience because it was demeaning or they simply hung around for too long, when it was probably clear that no wage or salary offer was forthcoming.
Students seeking work experience are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They need the contacts and experience, but publishing (and journalism in particular) is a fiercely competitive market, which means they have to work twice as hard.
The fact is that you have to put the effort in and make the experience work for you. Here are my tips for students:
1. Get out there - write to, email or telephone every contact you can find
2. Don't be choosy for the time being - there is plenty of time to specialise. All experience is valuable.
3. Be prepared to do anything within reason, including making lots of tea.
4. Be prepared to work hard. Dress up, turn up early, work smart and smile.
5. Keep in contact with everyone you meet. Do not lose touch - the people you meet now may be employers - or employees - in the future.
Since the late Nineties - when I started pursuing work experience opportunities - I have taken any opportunity to extoll the virtues of giving up your time and making the effort to work for free.
The difference is, I understand that the value of work experience is in how you, as the 'workie' make the most of it.
There are still people out there deriding their work experience because it was demeaning or they simply hung around for too long, when it was probably clear that no wage or salary offer was forthcoming.
Students seeking work experience are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They need the contacts and experience, but publishing (and journalism in particular) is a fiercely competitive market, which means they have to work twice as hard.
The fact is that you have to put the effort in and make the experience work for you. Here are my tips for students:
1. Get out there - write to, email or telephone every contact you can find
2. Don't be choosy for the time being - there is plenty of time to specialise. All experience is valuable.
3. Be prepared to do anything within reason, including making lots of tea.
4. Be prepared to work hard. Dress up, turn up early, work smart and smile.
5. Keep in contact with everyone you meet. Do not lose touch - the people you meet now may be employers - or employees - in the future.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Going back to basics
Web 2.0 provides options aplenty for engaging with your audience in new ways, such as web chats, Twitter, Facebook and forums. But publishers should never underestimate the amount of preparation required to make any new venture a success, however low-key or short-term the project.
I have just completed a web chat project, reaching out to a parenting group with robust views and a huge amount of enthusiasm for making their voice heard.
Having sorted the logistics and established a relationship with the relevant forum, I thought the rest of the solution - i.e. the actual content - would, literally, write itself on the day, as the chat took place.
The event went well, but in hindsight there were several areas for improvement. These don't just apply to web chats, but any form of media that is new to your operation. The list below may seem obvious, but when you are dealing with a different platform, its worth spending some time going back to basics first.
1. Research your audience - how do they communicate on different platforms? How does their tone and language change?
2. How will your content change to meet the audience's expectations? Remember, the power of content is the targeted way in which it is delivered.
3. Have a plan and stick to it. Engaging content needs to be delivered on time and in the way people expect.
4. Cross the t's and dot the i's. Make sure you have the resource and infrastructure to cover every eventuality: back-up suppliers, extra content, contingency plans.
5. Engage - using any new communications platform is a two-way street between you and your audience, like a letters page or comments on a blog. Success is measured by how personal the audience feel the communication is.
I have just completed a web chat project, reaching out to a parenting group with robust views and a huge amount of enthusiasm for making their voice heard.
Having sorted the logistics and established a relationship with the relevant forum, I thought the rest of the solution - i.e. the actual content - would, literally, write itself on the day, as the chat took place.
The event went well, but in hindsight there were several areas for improvement. These don't just apply to web chats, but any form of media that is new to your operation. The list below may seem obvious, but when you are dealing with a different platform, its worth spending some time going back to basics first.
1. Research your audience - how do they communicate on different platforms? How does their tone and language change?
2. How will your content change to meet the audience's expectations? Remember, the power of content is the targeted way in which it is delivered.
3. Have a plan and stick to it. Engaging content needs to be delivered on time and in the way people expect.
4. Cross the t's and dot the i's. Make sure you have the resource and infrastructure to cover every eventuality: back-up suppliers, extra content, contingency plans.
5. Engage - using any new communications platform is a two-way street between you and your audience, like a letters page or comments on a blog. Success is measured by how personal the audience feel the communication is.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Understand content through segmentation
Repurposing content for different platforms is the new challenge.
Publishers are in the fortunate position to be able to communicate at a number of different levels through various channels, but what should be crystal clear is that all of them require different types of content.
This was brought home to me recently when I studied the information put out from a major public-facing organisation. Their website was very worthy with valuable, in-depth content, but all of it was difficult to find. Users were complaining of it being too 'corporate'. By contrast, their Tweets did not carry enough value, i.e. clear facts or useful links. Both platforms were important contact points with their audience, but neither was being used in quite the right way.
These challenges are easily overcome when the publisher introduces new ways of producing content. Changing a website from corporate to friendly can be started through simple changes to copy tone, choice of images, and the way in which readers can interact through comments.
Likewise, Tweets can be improved through use of a basic checklist:
Is the Tweet informative?
Is it of genuine interest to followers?
What information can a follower take away or RT?
More importantly however, the publisher needs to ensure that all concerned understand why the content needs to be treated differently. And this is where segmentation comes in.
By happy coincidence I attended a fantastic presentation on this by Gina Banns of Oxford Strategic Marketing, at Civil Service Live. I had always thought of segmentation as a scientific process that was useful in selling a product or service to a customer, by justifying a communications tool.
This back-to-basics presentation showed me that it is also a great way to help your colleagues understand their audience.
I will be putting this into practice shortly and will keep you posted on the results...
Publishers are in the fortunate position to be able to communicate at a number of different levels through various channels, but what should be crystal clear is that all of them require different types of content.
This was brought home to me recently when I studied the information put out from a major public-facing organisation. Their website was very worthy with valuable, in-depth content, but all of it was difficult to find. Users were complaining of it being too 'corporate'. By contrast, their Tweets did not carry enough value, i.e. clear facts or useful links. Both platforms were important contact points with their audience, but neither was being used in quite the right way.
These challenges are easily overcome when the publisher introduces new ways of producing content. Changing a website from corporate to friendly can be started through simple changes to copy tone, choice of images, and the way in which readers can interact through comments.
Likewise, Tweets can be improved through use of a basic checklist:
Is the Tweet informative?
Is it of genuine interest to followers?
What information can a follower take away or RT?
More importantly however, the publisher needs to ensure that all concerned understand why the content needs to be treated differently. And this is where segmentation comes in.
By happy coincidence I attended a fantastic presentation on this by Gina Banns of Oxford Strategic Marketing, at Civil Service Live. I had always thought of segmentation as a scientific process that was useful in selling a product or service to a customer, by justifying a communications tool.
This back-to-basics presentation showed me that it is also a great way to help your colleagues understand their audience.
I will be putting this into practice shortly and will keep you posted on the results...
Monday, 29 June 2009
Professional publishing still leads the way
Publishing content - messages, information, advertising - is now a business that everyone is involved in, regardless of the size, shape or purpose of the organisation they represent.
This new age of online communications has unleashed a plethora of platforms through which to communicate with stakeholders. It has also brought democracy to the entire publishing process. Targeted, well-conceived and successful communication need no longer be the preserve of specialist agencies, publishers and marketers. Customers can comment, share and disseminate as they see fit.
There is now a shift to simple, uncluttered websites, supplemented by a value-added presence on social networks and honest, accountable, content via blogs that offers readers and customers something of interest, usually for nothing.
These platforms are easy to understand, harness and develop. They require time, regular commitment and a well thought out strategy from day one. I've blogged on this topic before and will expand in the future.
In the meantime, I am increasingly concerned by the approach individuals and their organisations are taking to the content they post online. These people, often owner-managers or internal communications staff, stand to benefit most from Web 2.0. They can interact with customers like never before, monitor opinion, test new products or ideas and create multiple identities for their brand or mission.
The content on their main websites or profiles is not necessarily a problem (these are treated like any other professional publication), but everything else they publish suffers from a 'fire and forget' approach. LinkedIn groups, for example, are rapidly filling with confusing questions, unstructured discussion groups and shameless spam. A new site - allvoices.com - is already littered with irrelevant PR material.
Worst of all however, is the content produced by people who, in their profiles and biographies, purport to understand the value of Web 2.0 and information sharing, but continue to plug specific products or services when commenting on blogs or contributing to discussion groups. When they do attempt to publish 'independent' content, it is often littered with typos and poor sentence construction. Why? There is no value to this effort and these people are diluting the value of the original communication.
Any form of publishing - whether a comment on an article, a corporate blog, status update or Tweet, should be checked as if it were going to print or to be broadcast. See this earlier post on the value of a gatekeeper.
This leads me to believe that there is still very much a need for publishers, specialist agencies and marketers to provide the quality of content that is lacking. Of course, I would say that. But take a look at the messages, discussions and comments published on your favourite networks and websites, and I guarantee you will be disappointed by the sloppy examples you find.
This new age of online communications has unleashed a plethora of platforms through which to communicate with stakeholders. It has also brought democracy to the entire publishing process. Targeted, well-conceived and successful communication need no longer be the preserve of specialist agencies, publishers and marketers. Customers can comment, share and disseminate as they see fit.
There is now a shift to simple, uncluttered websites, supplemented by a value-added presence on social networks and honest, accountable, content via blogs that offers readers and customers something of interest, usually for nothing.
These platforms are easy to understand, harness and develop. They require time, regular commitment and a well thought out strategy from day one. I've blogged on this topic before and will expand in the future.
In the meantime, I am increasingly concerned by the approach individuals and their organisations are taking to the content they post online. These people, often owner-managers or internal communications staff, stand to benefit most from Web 2.0. They can interact with customers like never before, monitor opinion, test new products or ideas and create multiple identities for their brand or mission.
The content on their main websites or profiles is not necessarily a problem (these are treated like any other professional publication), but everything else they publish suffers from a 'fire and forget' approach. LinkedIn groups, for example, are rapidly filling with confusing questions, unstructured discussion groups and shameless spam. A new site - allvoices.com - is already littered with irrelevant PR material.
Worst of all however, is the content produced by people who, in their profiles and biographies, purport to understand the value of Web 2.0 and information sharing, but continue to plug specific products or services when commenting on blogs or contributing to discussion groups. When they do attempt to publish 'independent' content, it is often littered with typos and poor sentence construction. Why? There is no value to this effort and these people are diluting the value of the original communication.
Any form of publishing - whether a comment on an article, a corporate blog, status update or Tweet, should be checked as if it were going to print or to be broadcast. See this earlier post on the value of a gatekeeper.
This leads me to believe that there is still very much a need for publishers, specialist agencies and marketers to provide the quality of content that is lacking. Of course, I would say that. But take a look at the messages, discussions and comments published on your favourite networks and websites, and I guarantee you will be disappointed by the sloppy examples you find.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Business is not an optional part of creativity, it is essential
Creativity is not an option, it is an essential part of business - so ran the headline in The Times for an article by Jim Prior, managing partner of a branding consultancy.
Basically he argues that company executives claim to want 'a brand as strong as Apple', but fail to commit the time and resources to creativity that generates strong branding.
Its a fair point and probably the reason companies such as Dell sell lots of hardware (efficient supply chain management, competitive pricing) but does not have the instant recognition and sex appeal of Apple.
So how does this relate to content and communications? Well, I would argue that a great many publishers and communicators spend too much time on creativity and the branding of their work, rather than on the less-sexy, but crucial, business processes: budgeting, service levels, analysis of response and distribution.
In this current climate it has never been more important to know where every nut and bolt of your publishing process is located, and to interrogate every stage to ensure maximum value.
Here are five starting points for a typical content specialist:
1. Writers - if you employ contributors, ask yourself if you are getting best value from them? Their rates may be competitive, but are they true advocates for your publication or comms strategy? Make sure they are onside and always on the look-out for mutually beneficial opportunities.
2. Print and/or web management costs - when was the last time you put this out to tender?
3. Distribution/marketing - take the opportunity to look at how you deliver information. Before committing resource to another social media channel, examine what you currently do and take the opportunity to clean up lists or gather constructive feedback from customers/readers.
4. Set budgets for individual elements of the publishing process and stick with them. Make sure staff understand the importance of budgeting and its relevance to the success of the business.
5. Consider an external business process accreditation such as ISO9001. Take it from me - external accreditation can be fairly straight forward if tackled in the right way, and could save £thousands in the long term.
Basically he argues that company executives claim to want 'a brand as strong as Apple', but fail to commit the time and resources to creativity that generates strong branding.
Its a fair point and probably the reason companies such as Dell sell lots of hardware (efficient supply chain management, competitive pricing) but does not have the instant recognition and sex appeal of Apple.
So how does this relate to content and communications? Well, I would argue that a great many publishers and communicators spend too much time on creativity and the branding of their work, rather than on the less-sexy, but crucial, business processes: budgeting, service levels, analysis of response and distribution.
In this current climate it has never been more important to know where every nut and bolt of your publishing process is located, and to interrogate every stage to ensure maximum value.
Here are five starting points for a typical content specialist:
1. Writers - if you employ contributors, ask yourself if you are getting best value from them? Their rates may be competitive, but are they true advocates for your publication or comms strategy? Make sure they are onside and always on the look-out for mutually beneficial opportunities.
2. Print and/or web management costs - when was the last time you put this out to tender?
3. Distribution/marketing - take the opportunity to look at how you deliver information. Before committing resource to another social media channel, examine what you currently do and take the opportunity to clean up lists or gather constructive feedback from customers/readers.
4. Set budgets for individual elements of the publishing process and stick with them. Make sure staff understand the importance of budgeting and its relevance to the success of the business.
5. Consider an external business process accreditation such as ISO9001. Take it from me - external accreditation can be fairly straight forward if tackled in the right way, and could save £thousands in the long term.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Bar code technology helps publishers market online content
Just read a fantastic news item explaining how HarperCollins, the book publisher, is harnessing 2D bar code technology to allow readers to access more information on the book and its subjects, online.
I see great potential for this technology across all forms of publishing - marketing material, information leaflets, magazines and newspapers. Read the whole article here.
This encapsulates perfectly the way in which print and online should work together, with print acting as a launch pad to more specific, in-depth information online.
I see great potential for this technology across all forms of publishing - marketing material, information leaflets, magazines and newspapers. Read the whole article here.
This encapsulates perfectly the way in which print and online should work together, with print acting as a launch pad to more specific, in-depth information online.
Friday, 19 June 2009
Now is the time for newspapers to strike out
Why is The Daily Telegraph not making more of its online expenses coverage? The Guardian has captured the initiative on this, publishing the records on their website in a searchable format, that allows ordinary voters like you and I to quickly search for our local MP, or examples of expenditure that concern us most.
There is no way that I would have bought the Telegraph every day for the past four weeks (and counting), just to establish the details concerning my local MP or interests. However, if the information had been published online as well, I would have readily paid a nominal fee per day, week or visit to read what I wanted to. This story could have been the perfect test bed on which to launch a pay-per-view model and begin to experiment with monetising digital content.
I have always championed the fact that Web 2.0 allows publishers to deliver information in a way that cannot be achieved in ink-on-paper. A searchable database of expenses, with extended coverage and analysis for those who want it, would have been brilliant.
Instead, I see the Telegraph are printing a colour supplement with Saturday's paper - yet more newsprint to wade through. Will it boost copy sales? Watch this space.
There is no way that I would have bought the Telegraph every day for the past four weeks (and counting), just to establish the details concerning my local MP or interests. However, if the information had been published online as well, I would have readily paid a nominal fee per day, week or visit to read what I wanted to. This story could have been the perfect test bed on which to launch a pay-per-view model and begin to experiment with monetising digital content.
I have always championed the fact that Web 2.0 allows publishers to deliver information in a way that cannot be achieved in ink-on-paper. A searchable database of expenses, with extended coverage and analysis for those who want it, would have been brilliant.
Instead, I see the Telegraph are printing a colour supplement with Saturday's paper - yet more newsprint to wade through. Will it boost copy sales? Watch this space.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Never forget your gatekeeper
Speaking with a variety of publishers recently reminded me of a recurring gap in many organisation's publishing processes - the final check pre-press.
This applies on- and off-line, and was drummed into me at a tender age, when I was cutting my teeth on a local newspaper.
I am not referring to tone, or even grammar and spelling, but simply checking the content overall. You know, the really simple items that are so easily left out, rarely noticed, but could be critically important from the point of view of a reader, lawyer or advertiser. Items include image credits, pull quotes (does it match the article, or has it been grabbed from somewhere else by a designer?), late-change facts and figures or even folios (are the pages numbered consecutively?)
Too often editors, art directors and subs (assuming that luxury is available) pontificate over a creative detail, overlooking more serious errors. Image captions are particularly important and something that all publishers should watch carefully. With cheap 'n cheerful galleries springing up all the time on the net, many staff assume there are no Ts&Cs to observe.
All organisations who are publishing content (that's all of them these days) should draw up a simple list of 'forgettables' such as those listed above, then ensure that someone is responsible for checking each and every one before going to press - the gatekeeper.
That person should, ideally, be someone removed from the day-to-day creative process. Even better, someone with an eye for detail who is as near as possible to your average reader. In small organisations I often find the best person for this role is someone from the accounts team.
Ultimately of course, the publisher must take responsibility for these items and in my experience setting time aside at the beginning or end of a day, with a strong coffee, away from email and phones, is the best formula.
This applies on- and off-line, and was drummed into me at a tender age, when I was cutting my teeth on a local newspaper.
I am not referring to tone, or even grammar and spelling, but simply checking the content overall. You know, the really simple items that are so easily left out, rarely noticed, but could be critically important from the point of view of a reader, lawyer or advertiser. Items include image credits, pull quotes (does it match the article, or has it been grabbed from somewhere else by a designer?), late-change facts and figures or even folios (are the pages numbered consecutively?)
Too often editors, art directors and subs (assuming that luxury is available) pontificate over a creative detail, overlooking more serious errors. Image captions are particularly important and something that all publishers should watch carefully. With cheap 'n cheerful galleries springing up all the time on the net, many staff assume there are no Ts&Cs to observe.
All organisations who are publishing content (that's all of them these days) should draw up a simple list of 'forgettables' such as those listed above, then ensure that someone is responsible for checking each and every one before going to press - the gatekeeper.
That person should, ideally, be someone removed from the day-to-day creative process. Even better, someone with an eye for detail who is as near as possible to your average reader. In small organisations I often find the best person for this role is someone from the accounts team.
Ultimately of course, the publisher must take responsibility for these items and in my experience setting time aside at the beginning or end of a day, with a strong coffee, away from email and phones, is the best formula.
Monday, 15 June 2009
A simple to-do list for social media
I have just completed a project for a fast growing publishing company, introducing some simple social media ideas to their day-to-day business.
As described in my previous post, the old adage of 'keep it simple, stupid' applies when embarking on channels such as Twitter, but I did find another handy post from Junta42, summarising all the housekeeping measures you can undertake to make sure profiles and networks are as useful as possible. Read the article in full here.
You will see a couple of contradictions between what Joe Pullizi of Junta42 recommends and my own approach, most notably the choice of blog platform. I feel that, for many SMEs and independent bloggers, Wordpress and similar are too time-consuming to set up by comparison to Blogger. Ultimately all these projects are about communicating content, therefore clear, simple and time-efficient solutions must be best, especially when it is difficult to correlate a direct ROI between a blog and business income.
As described in my previous post, the old adage of 'keep it simple, stupid' applies when embarking on channels such as Twitter, but I did find another handy post from Junta42, summarising all the housekeeping measures you can undertake to make sure profiles and networks are as useful as possible. Read the article in full here.
You will see a couple of contradictions between what Joe Pullizi of Junta42 recommends and my own approach, most notably the choice of blog platform. I feel that, for many SMEs and independent bloggers, Wordpress and similar are too time-consuming to set up by comparison to Blogger. Ultimately all these projects are about communicating content, therefore clear, simple and time-efficient solutions must be best, especially when it is difficult to correlate a direct ROI between a blog and business income.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Blogs, social media and Web 2.0 - look before you leap
Many business and organisations - large and small - are perceived to be 'playing catch up' when it comes to their online presence.
However, is a full suite of profiles, networks, blogs and tweets really the answer for every organisation? How do you determine what is most important and worth the time and investment?
I have been working with a fast-growing publisher whose focus is firmly on capital growth - quite right too. But they also recognise a need to demonstrate to their readers and investors that they understand the benefits of additional relevant media.
Below is a list of questions I asked the owners before embarking on a solution. I have attempted to place them in approximate order of priority.
1. How will a blog, Tweets and social network presence benefit your business?
2. How much time can you afford to write interesting, engaging content for posts, tweets and discussions?
3. How much investment (time and money) will these benefits warrant?
4. What is the vision for this content?
5. How will you measure the effects and manage responses?
6. How will you develop and review this work on a monthly basis?
Remember, these questions are basic and apply to an organisation where every penny counts.
Points 1-3 are most important - if you cannot execute something well, it is probably not worth doing at all, and indicative of wider management problems in the organisation.
However, is a full suite of profiles, networks, blogs and tweets really the answer for every organisation? How do you determine what is most important and worth the time and investment?
I have been working with a fast-growing publisher whose focus is firmly on capital growth - quite right too. But they also recognise a need to demonstrate to their readers and investors that they understand the benefits of additional relevant media.
Below is a list of questions I asked the owners before embarking on a solution. I have attempted to place them in approximate order of priority.
1. How will a blog, Tweets and social network presence benefit your business?
2. How much time can you afford to write interesting, engaging content for posts, tweets and discussions?
3. How much investment (time and money) will these benefits warrant?
4. What is the vision for this content?
5. How will you measure the effects and manage responses?
6. How will you develop and review this work on a monthly basis?
Remember, these questions are basic and apply to an organisation where every penny counts.
Points 1-3 are most important - if you cannot execute something well, it is probably not worth doing at all, and indicative of wider management problems in the organisation.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Asking a difficult question - how much is your content worth?
With advertising revenues in such a state of flux, many publishers might regret the hugely discounted subscription fees they have been promoting.
Many business plans for publishers highlight subscriptions revenue as a steady bedrock of income, but in actual fact they are only concerned with the overall subscriptions volume that they can include in pitches to advertisers.
Now this balance needs to shift, so that subscriptions income is profitable and goes some way to limiting the huge deficits left by the loss of advertising (particularly if GM were one of your clients!).
The question is - do publisher's know where the true value of their content lies, and how to price subscriptions on- and off-line accordingly? What will an audience be prepared to pay and how is this influenced by what you have been previously charging?
I came across this interesting piece from Guy Lecharles Gonzalez at FolioMag, describing the challenge for bookstall publishers. Worth a read.
In the meantime, this got me thinking about how such developments could prove positive for custom publishers - anyone providing quality content aimed at specific customers or markets. While 'independent' publishers juggle ad revenue and subscriptions prices, potential advertisers can get better value by engaging directly with their customers in a custom, quality editorial environment. Click here for evidence of this.
In the meantime, mainstream magazine publishers will have to take a deep breath and place the emphasis of value on their content and the way in which it engages the audience.
Many business plans for publishers highlight subscriptions revenue as a steady bedrock of income, but in actual fact they are only concerned with the overall subscriptions volume that they can include in pitches to advertisers.
Now this balance needs to shift, so that subscriptions income is profitable and goes some way to limiting the huge deficits left by the loss of advertising (particularly if GM were one of your clients!).
The question is - do publisher's know where the true value of their content lies, and how to price subscriptions on- and off-line accordingly? What will an audience be prepared to pay and how is this influenced by what you have been previously charging?
I came across this interesting piece from Guy Lecharles Gonzalez at FolioMag, describing the challenge for bookstall publishers. Worth a read.
In the meantime, this got me thinking about how such developments could prove positive for custom publishers - anyone providing quality content aimed at specific customers or markets. While 'independent' publishers juggle ad revenue and subscriptions prices, potential advertisers can get better value by engaging directly with their customers in a custom, quality editorial environment. Click here for evidence of this.
In the meantime, mainstream magazine publishers will have to take a deep breath and place the emphasis of value on their content and the way in which it engages the audience.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Charity newsletter makes money
Good content in print can generate significant ROI. Take a look at this case study of how a children's charity has transformed their newsletter: http://tiny.cc/79Or4
The article demonstrates that:
1. Good research will reveal best practise and help support your business case
2. You must understand your audience: what do they really want to read?
3. 'Less is more' where content is concerned
Here is another example of a great charity newsletter.
The article demonstrates that:
1. Good research will reveal best practise and help support your business case
2. You must understand your audience: what do they really want to read?
3. 'Less is more' where content is concerned
Here is another example of a great charity newsletter.
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Too little, too late from ombudsmen
The Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) has appointed a new executive director, Jeffrey Dvorkin. According to this piece in the Observer newspaper, the ONO are looking at ways to work within the blogosphere and consider allowing online media critics into the fold.
They seem to be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. What will their conclusions be and how will they help?
The news industry should be left to remould itself based on survival of the fittest. The debate has moved on from 'if' and 'when' to 'now'.
They seem to be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. What will their conclusions be and how will they help?
The news industry should be left to remould itself based on survival of the fittest. The debate has moved on from 'if' and 'when' to 'now'.
When the tough get good, the going gets tough
How do you make a good publication and business even better? Surprisingly, this can be more difficult than starting from scratch.
I met up with some old contacts last week and it struck me that I was having the same conversation with them that I have heard countless times before.
It goes something like this:
Owner/publisher: "The publication is profitable, well-received and fulfilling our business plan. But it's hard work, and we don't know where to start in terms of making the business more process-led, creative and growing the audience."
Very often, the most successful publishing operations have a great product, but with all the work that goes into making it financially viable the focus on marketing, business development and basic processes is completely lost.
Think poor website and little or no online presence (they publish printed communications to supplement a major international media source). However, still a very profitable operation.
In my experience, a little discipline is required here. I suggested they set aside ten minutes every few days to update a blog with sneak previews of forthcoming issues and topics. And make sure updates are emailed out to all readers, advertisers and partners who have opted in.
I also suggested they did the same with their social network presence. Why do so many organisations have dusty, out-of-date Facebook and LinkedIn pages? What's the point if you don't add some decent content on a regular basis?
Here's an example of how it should be done.
Since last week they have followed my advice and already received calls from advertisers and readers requesting new information and products. All for the sake of just 30 minutes work every week.
Obviously they are keen to ensure the team's focus remains on the 'core' work and this solution is by no means conclusive, but it shows what can be achieved with a little discipline and a second pair of eyes.
I met up with some old contacts last week and it struck me that I was having the same conversation with them that I have heard countless times before.
It goes something like this:
Owner/publisher: "The publication is profitable, well-received and fulfilling our business plan. But it's hard work, and we don't know where to start in terms of making the business more process-led, creative and growing the audience."
Very often, the most successful publishing operations have a great product, but with all the work that goes into making it financially viable the focus on marketing, business development and basic processes is completely lost.
Think poor website and little or no online presence (they publish printed communications to supplement a major international media source). However, still a very profitable operation.
In my experience, a little discipline is required here. I suggested they set aside ten minutes every few days to update a blog with sneak previews of forthcoming issues and topics. And make sure updates are emailed out to all readers, advertisers and partners who have opted in.
I also suggested they did the same with their social network presence. Why do so many organisations have dusty, out-of-date Facebook and LinkedIn pages? What's the point if you don't add some decent content on a regular basis?
Here's an example of how it should be done.
Since last week they have followed my advice and already received calls from advertisers and readers requesting new information and products. All for the sake of just 30 minutes work every week.
Obviously they are keen to ensure the team's focus remains on the 'core' work and this solution is by no means conclusive, but it shows what can be achieved with a little discipline and a second pair of eyes.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Mine, all mine...but I don't want it
Have you ordered a copy of Mine magazine yet?
This is a customer magazine, sponsored by Lexus and published by Time. The idea is clever in principle. You register here and give some basic information about your lifestyle and interests and choose five magazines from the Time portfolio that interest you. For non-US readers of this blog, Time's other titles include Sports Illustrated, Golf and Food&Wine.
Every month you will receive a 'customised' magazine delivered to your inbox with content aggregated from these titles and selected based on you and your interests.
Yes, there is some advertising from Lexus, but no more than you would see in any other publication. And yes, the content is very worthy as you would expect from a Time publication.
But does it work as a package? I don't think so; for two reasons.
The platform on which each issue is presented looks like the usual digi-mag software. This means lots of zooming in and out to read copy, naff flicking pages and a painful read if you are trying to access the information on a netbook.
The magazine has been designed as a printed magazine, not for web viewing. Just as importantly, the features do not offer the flow and synergy of a normal, original, magazine. Features from each of the chosen titles simply butt up against each other, making the whole package feel cheap.
When I read the original press release promoting this new publication, I thought it may represent a new avenue for custom content. Instead, like almost all digi-mag presentations I have seen, it represents re-purposed content at its most basic.
I have yet to see any response figures from Lexus and I will happily eat my words if it helps sell lots of vehicles. Then Mine will have fulfilled its purpose.
This is a customer magazine, sponsored by Lexus and published by Time. The idea is clever in principle. You register here and give some basic information about your lifestyle and interests and choose five magazines from the Time portfolio that interest you. For non-US readers of this blog, Time's other titles include Sports Illustrated, Golf and Food&Wine.
Every month you will receive a 'customised' magazine delivered to your inbox with content aggregated from these titles and selected based on you and your interests.
Yes, there is some advertising from Lexus, but no more than you would see in any other publication. And yes, the content is very worthy as you would expect from a Time publication.
But does it work as a package? I don't think so; for two reasons.
The platform on which each issue is presented looks like the usual digi-mag software. This means lots of zooming in and out to read copy, naff flicking pages and a painful read if you are trying to access the information on a netbook.
The magazine has been designed as a printed magazine, not for web viewing. Just as importantly, the features do not offer the flow and synergy of a normal, original, magazine. Features from each of the chosen titles simply butt up against each other, making the whole package feel cheap.
When I read the original press release promoting this new publication, I thought it may represent a new avenue for custom content. Instead, like almost all digi-mag presentations I have seen, it represents re-purposed content at its most basic.
I have yet to see any response figures from Lexus and I will happily eat my words if it helps sell lots of vehicles. Then Mine will have fulfilled its purpose.
Why journalists must save themselves
When the UK entered the credit crunch last year, and eventually moved into recession, the resulting job losses in journalism clashed with the already-raging debate about 'citizen journalism' and the proliferation of online 'news' and blogs.
Let's be clear - real journalism will always be needed. Bloggers comment on news, therefore someone needs to be on the sharp end, sourcing the stories and reporting them. In my view blogs add comment, opinion and nurture debate. No more, no less. That's as it should be in the Web 2.0 world.
But nevertheless, journalists do need to be sharper, faster and more commercially-minded than ever. They need to marketers, publishers and salesman all in one. This is particularly prevalent in local media, where the effects of recession are being felt most. If signs in the US are anything to go by, local media could be going 'hyper-local' with journalists reporting independently on small areas and responsible for their whole business, not just the editorial.
Thankfully, I am not the only one thinking this way. This blog from Rick Waghorn is typical of many cropping up in the ether right now.
I think this is particularly refreshing and not a moment too soon. I have long advocated and practised running editorial and sales teams alongside each other, both as a business model and in terms of the physical layout of the office.
Only this way can each party understand what the other requires and make the publication work as a business, which, after all, is what keeps everyone employed.
Journalists - follow the lead set by many of your contemporaries and take up the entrepreneurial challenge!
Let's be clear - real journalism will always be needed. Bloggers comment on news, therefore someone needs to be on the sharp end, sourcing the stories and reporting them. In my view blogs add comment, opinion and nurture debate. No more, no less. That's as it should be in the Web 2.0 world.
But nevertheless, journalists do need to be sharper, faster and more commercially-minded than ever. They need to marketers, publishers and salesman all in one. This is particularly prevalent in local media, where the effects of recession are being felt most. If signs in the US are anything to go by, local media could be going 'hyper-local' with journalists reporting independently on small areas and responsible for their whole business, not just the editorial.
Thankfully, I am not the only one thinking this way. This blog from Rick Waghorn is typical of many cropping up in the ether right now.
I think this is particularly refreshing and not a moment too soon. I have long advocated and practised running editorial and sales teams alongside each other, both as a business model and in terms of the physical layout of the office.
Only this way can each party understand what the other requires and make the publication work as a business, which, after all, is what keeps everyone employed.
Journalists - follow the lead set by many of your contemporaries and take up the entrepreneurial challenge!
Friday, 8 May 2009
Converting critics to advocates
I came across this fantastic case study yesterday.
These lessons from Singapore Airlines can be applied when handling a disgruntled reader, advertiser, client or customer.
These lessons from Singapore Airlines can be applied when handling a disgruntled reader, advertiser, client or customer.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
The L word
OK, this may be an obvious one to many, but it is amazing how many organisations still believe that an expensive website created only be developers will suddenly push their presence to the top of the search engine results.
While reading The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki, I came across this great definition of how Google actually works:
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important".
So, for your site to be a success you need to have plenty of reciprocal links and in order for people to link to you, plenty of valuable content. Simple, but worth a reminder.
While reading The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki, I came across this great definition of how Google actually works:
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important".
So, for your site to be a success you need to have plenty of reciprocal links and in order for people to link to you, plenty of valuable content. Simple, but worth a reminder.
Monday, 4 May 2009
Look after your suppliers as well
As a publisher of magazines, direct marketing material and websites on behalf of clients, I spend much of my time producing reports, keeping valued customers up-to-date on progress with their projects.
I also have to spend a similar amount of time managing suppliers: printers, web developers, freelance writers and designers, mail houses and so on.
Given the large amounts of money I pay to these suppliers, it would be all too easy to threaten to withdraw work as a method of managing their progress. Naturally I do not do this, because I believe in working with people and making choices based on informed decisions from the outset.
However, it would seem that one or two organisations I have come across in the past do not train their staff in the management of suppliers. This has often put relationships with these clients under strain: you want to stay professional and helpful at all times; they want to be placed top of the list and provided with a level of service that far outstrips the formal agreement.
Fortunately I have enough experience to smooth out these situations and ensure the client feels well taken care of, regardless.
However I can't help but think there must be an opportunity to train organisations (at all levels) in how to handle suppliers.
Here's a list of some of the points I would include:
1. Do- choose a supplier in whom you have confidence, then stay confident. Provided your supplier does a good job, your trust should continue to grow
2. Do not - look for problems that are not there
3. Do - ask if you are unsure or unhappy about something
4. Do - agree the parameters, specification and scope of your project. Then stick to these and keep your side of the bargain. If anything needs to change, be honest with your supplier straight away
5. Do - take time to thank them for a job well done, however small or regular the work may be. That way, if you do have to go back with a complaint another time, it will have all the more impact
6. Do - empathise. You know that you are not alone in supplying your customers, so why should you expect an exclusive service? Understand the constraints of a working day and make a judgement on what you would reasonably expect to achieve.
7. Do - keep the relationship as amicable and friendly as possible. If you ever have cause to be upset, the effects will be much greater
I also have to spend a similar amount of time managing suppliers: printers, web developers, freelance writers and designers, mail houses and so on.
Given the large amounts of money I pay to these suppliers, it would be all too easy to threaten to withdraw work as a method of managing their progress. Naturally I do not do this, because I believe in working with people and making choices based on informed decisions from the outset.
However, it would seem that one or two organisations I have come across in the past do not train their staff in the management of suppliers. This has often put relationships with these clients under strain: you want to stay professional and helpful at all times; they want to be placed top of the list and provided with a level of service that far outstrips the formal agreement.
Fortunately I have enough experience to smooth out these situations and ensure the client feels well taken care of, regardless.
However I can't help but think there must be an opportunity to train organisations (at all levels) in how to handle suppliers.
Here's a list of some of the points I would include:
1. Do- choose a supplier in whom you have confidence, then stay confident. Provided your supplier does a good job, your trust should continue to grow
2. Do not - look for problems that are not there
3. Do - ask if you are unsure or unhappy about something
4. Do - agree the parameters, specification and scope of your project. Then stick to these and keep your side of the bargain. If anything needs to change, be honest with your supplier straight away
5. Do - take time to thank them for a job well done, however small or regular the work may be. That way, if you do have to go back with a complaint another time, it will have all the more impact
6. Do - empathise. You know that you are not alone in supplying your customers, so why should you expect an exclusive service? Understand the constraints of a working day and make a judgement on what you would reasonably expect to achieve.
7. Do - keep the relationship as amicable and friendly as possible. If you ever have cause to be upset, the effects will be much greater
Monday, 27 April 2009
If content is King, let's keep it that way
I find it amazing that basic standards of writing can be so poor, particularly from people who are publishing online, in the public domain.
This particular issue has been brought home to me having spent increasing amounts of time communicating with peers through communities such as LinkedIn. Here and in thousands of other environments online there are lively debates about how social networking and content sharing will revolutinise the way we all do business - nowhere more so than in the media. Typically, everyone agrees that in order to promote 'You Ltd.', one needs to be everywhere online - social and business profiles, blogs, forums etc. Yet despite everyone acknowledging the importance of maintaining an online presence, the standard of writing leaves much to be desired.
Don't misunderstand me - I cannot claim to be a member of the grammar police - but keeping communications concise and accurate should be a priority, regardless of how quickly you want to make yourself heard. Particularly so if you writing within a media or comms context.
On the positive side (well, for me and my colleagues at least), this does mean that there will always be a market for content specialists. Professional publishers, marketers and journalists who can print, blog, tweet or podcast a news story or corporate message in an engaging and entertaining way.
This particular issue has been brought home to me having spent increasing amounts of time communicating with peers through communities such as LinkedIn. Here and in thousands of other environments online there are lively debates about how social networking and content sharing will revolutinise the way we all do business - nowhere more so than in the media. Typically, everyone agrees that in order to promote 'You Ltd.', one needs to be everywhere online - social and business profiles, blogs, forums etc. Yet despite everyone acknowledging the importance of maintaining an online presence, the standard of writing leaves much to be desired.
Don't misunderstand me - I cannot claim to be a member of the grammar police - but keeping communications concise and accurate should be a priority, regardless of how quickly you want to make yourself heard. Particularly so if you writing within a media or comms context.
On the positive side (well, for me and my colleagues at least), this does mean that there will always be a market for content specialists. Professional publishers, marketers and journalists who can print, blog, tweet or podcast a news story or corporate message in an engaging and entertaining way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
View my profile